Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Review in Land Ceiling Case: Asharfi Devi vs. State of U.P. (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 01 February 2019

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5217 of 2010

Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Can a review application be dismissed if there is no apparent error on the face of the record? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning land ceiling laws. The core issue was whether the High Court was justified in dismissing a review application, which challenged an earlier order, based on the absence of an obvious error. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The original appellant, Asharfi Devi, owned certain lands that were subjected to ceiling proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. These proceedings resulted in some of her land being declared surplus. The State claimed to have taken possession of the surplus land in 1982. The Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed in Uttar Pradesh on 22 March 1999. In 2002, Asharfi Devi filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, arguing that since she remained in possession of the surplus land even after the Repeal Act, the ceiling proceedings should be considered lapsed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition on 14 March 2008, holding that Asharfi Devi failed to prove her possession of the land on the date of repeal. Aggrieved by this, she filed a review application, which was also dismissed on 16 December 2008. Asharfi Devi then filed a special leave petition (appeal) against the review order in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the review of judgments. According to this provision, a review is permissible only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that not every error, whether factual or legal, can be a subject of review. It can only be a subject of appeal arising out of such order. The error must be evident from the record itself.

Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states:

“Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, argued that the original appellant had challenged the main order of 14.03.2008 along with the review order of 16.12.2008. He further contended that the Supreme Court should invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to allow the appellants to challenge the main order. Mr. Bhushan also extensively referred to pleadings and documents to argue the merits of the main order, as if the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against that order.

The respondents, represented by Dr. M.P. Raju, argued that the appeal was only against the review order and not the main order. They emphasized that the High Court had rightly dismissed the review application as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

✓ Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the review application filed by the original appellant, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the main order dated 14.03.2008 within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

✓ Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – This provision was the central authority for determining whether a review was permissible. The court emphasized that a review is only permissible if there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* – The Court held that the High Court had correctly applied this provision by not finding any error apparent on the face of the record in the main order. The Court emphasized that review jurisdiction is limited and does not allow for re-evaluation of facts and evidence like an appellate court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural aspects of the case and the limited scope of review jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that it could not examine the legality of the main order in an appeal against the review order. The Court also noted that the review jurisdiction is not an opportunity to re-evaluate the facts and evidence. The Court’s focus was on whether the High Court had correctly applied the principles of review as outlined in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court considered the argument of the appellant to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution. However, the Court did not find any merit in it. The Court noted that the original appellant did not assign any reason as to what prevented her from filing the SLP against the main order in the last 11 years. The Court also observed that there was no legal impediment on the appellant’s right to file the SLP as soon as the main order was passed. Finally, the Court noted that even when the present SLP was filed against the review order, the original appellant did not challenge the main order.

The Court held that “It is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order.”

The Court stated that “In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.”

The Court also observed, “And lastly, once the finding was recorded by the High Court in the writ petition that the writ petitioner (original appellant) failed to prove her actual possession on the land in question on the date of repeal, such finding could not have been examined de novo in review jurisdiction by the same Court like an Appellate Court on the facts and evidence.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-evaluate facts or evidence.
• ✓ Appeals against orders must be filed in a timely manner, and delays can prevent the invocation of extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• ✓ An order cannot be challenged in review if the challenge is not based on an error apparent on the face of the record.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, and it cannot be used to re-evaluate facts or evidence. This case reinforces the existing principles of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, without introducing any new legal principle.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision to dismiss the review application. The Court reiterated that the review jurisdiction is limited and does not allow for a re-evaluation of facts and evidence like an appellate court. The Court also emphasized the importance of timely appeals and the limitations on invoking extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Category

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Category: Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Parent Category: Land Ceiling Laws

Child Category: Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

Parent Category: Review Jurisdiction

Child Category: Scope of Review

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue was whether the High Court was correct in dismissing a review application for not finding an error apparent on the face of the record.

Q: What is the meaning of “error apparent on the face of the record”?

A: It refers to an error that is obvious and evident from the court’s record itself, without requiring any detailed examination of evidence or arguments.

Q: Can a review be filed for any error?

A: No, a review can only be filed for errors apparent on the face of the record, not for every factual or legal error.

Q: What is the significance of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

A: This provision governs the review of judgments and specifies the conditions under which a review is permissible.

Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the use of Article 142 in this case?

A: The Supreme Court refused to invoke its powers under Article 142, citing the appellant’s failure to challenge the main order in a timely manner.

Q: What is the key takeaway from this judgment?

A: The key takeaway is that the review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-evaluate facts or evidence. Appeals must be filed in a timely manner.